Thank you, Justin, for recognizing that Indep1 and many other comments focus on the political pursuasion of those who implemented it (e.g., "liberal elites"). Yes, even the right-wing can be responsible for policies with which people disagree (e.g., "not think(ing) twice about somehow knowing what's best for everyone, and using the force of government to impose their will on all of us").

As for your describing any view as a "completely ignorant statement," that harsh criticism deserves more signficant support than what you wrote which essentially says you don't want to pay regardless of the implications, including making other people pay.

Again Indep1 demonstrates wrong but dogmatic approach when he writes, "liberal elites don't think twice about somehow knowing what's best for everyone, and using the force of government to impose their will on all of us."

Then Indep1 writes about all sorts of problems that the "liberals" caused including "being sent to prison" and "bulb police."

Problem is that this "2007 bill, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush..."

YES, GEORGE W. BUSH!

Source: That is from here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html) but run your own searches; it is even on FoxNews.

As for Indep1's proposal that we let the market decide, the problem is this: people who use inefficient light bulbs pay less for them but impose their costs on the rest of us (via higher energy costs, more pollution, and higher taxes).

Great point: "Sometimes a free market society doesn't go for what is best but for what is cheapest."

That is called the "tragedy of the commons."

Consumers want the cheapest or to take the most even if they impose costs on others. It is society's job to insure that those costs do not undermine society.

That is why many other comments about "personal freedom" appear so unbalanced. The comments advocate their own right to buy products that impose costs--higher electric bills, more pollution, higher taxes, etc.--on everyone else.

Frankly, I am pleased that the Bush administration implemented this program that tends to encourage responsible behavior.

About "forc(ing) the young to buy insurance they don't want:" Instead of being responsible and buying insurance for when they become ill or suffer from an accident, LogicalTaxpayer wants taxpayers and insured people to pay for their health care.

About "keeping interest rates low and the income of the elderly low while inflation is kept high:" Keeping interest rates low is normally accepted--by both parties and all business people--as being a good thing; while oil prices have gone up (in large part because of critical problems with oil producing countries) inflation is not close to 8%.

I am not entirely happy with Sherrod Brown's performance. Then, again, over the past 4 years he and President Obama have had to deal with earth shaking economic problems that they inherited and an opposing party that demonstrated brinkmanship which caused real damage (including devaluing the US dollar and causing some of the inflation about which you complain).

So as between Senator Brown and Josh Mandel who seems incapable of articulating a thoughtful approach or even consistently stating accurate assertions, I'll choose Senator Brown.

You promote being "responsible, [make good] life decisions and want the government to stay out of your life."

Yet at the same time you promote ("I signed it into law before I decided to oppose it") Romney and ("no-brain") Mandel who want to allow people to be IRRESPONSIBLE and make BAD LIFE DECISIONS by shifting their medical costs onto others.

Also, you are a little abrupt to assert a fact--that "this paper has a (disgustingly liberal, double-standard) bias"--WITHOUT ANY FACTS.

You would be more convincing if, for example, you assessed and reported the Plain Dealer's endorsements. See: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/09/plain_dealer_endorsements_1.html or some other information.

By contrast Josh Mandel's advertisements, his surrogates advertisements and, perhaps worst of all, Mandel's own statements are so outrageous, so arrogant, so devoid of thoughtful substance, that they deserve condemnation.

And while Indep1 insinuates that the Plain Dealer has some bias here, run your own searches: editorials condemning Josh Mandel have appeared in newspapers published in Toledo, Akron and Columbus as well as regional newspapers.

Here "CuyahogaRepublican" repeats an often repeated complaint. "Nonsense's" posted the same one on April 28, 2012 at 12:49PM: "Brown studied overseas and obtained a degree in Russian studies during the cold war."

To that slur another reader noted: "Brown received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Russian studies from Yale University in 1974. At Yale, he was in Davenport College, the same residential college as U.S. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush. He went on to receive a Master of Public Administration degree and a Master of Arts degree in education from the Ohio State University in Columbus in 1979 and 1981, respectively."

So "CuyahogaRepublican" and "Nonsense" repeat a slur without context (not unlike the politician they seek to defend).

While I, too, respect people who serve our nation in the military (and elsewhere), I do not respect people only because they have done so.

Nor do I respect people who have served in the military but then, like Mr. Mandel, behave badly.

For example (the conservative) Columbus Dispatch notes:

• "After criticizing his Democratic predecessor, Kevin Boyce, for hiring politically connected people for key slots, Mandel put six of his young campaign workers into important and well-paid positions in the treasurer’s office.

• Of 15 Mandel statements evaluated by The Plain Dealer’s fact-checking arm, “PolitiFact,” seven have been deemed mostly false, false or “pants on fire” false. After Mandel received a “pants on fire” for blaming Brown for Ohio jobs relocating to China, Mandel told the newspaper that he intended to repeat the assertion “again and again” and said he sees no downside to doing so.

• Mandel missed the first 14 meetings of the Ohio Board of Deposit, the board he chairs that oversees how the state invests billions of taxpayer dollars. He sent a surrogate to run those meetings but attended the March meeting himself."

Mr. Mandel's perpetuates his lack of credibility on his own website's biography where he boasts of attending Harvard.

In reality, Mr. Mandel attended an open-to-all seminar which ranged from 1-10 days in duration and cost $1000 - $2000 per day. (http://ksgexecprogram.harvard.edu/Programs/By_Date.aspx)

Mr. Mandel's boasting about his critical role in preserving or even improving Ohio's bond rating doesn't ring true either. What is clear that Ohio’s S&P credit rating is among the country’s top 52%. Not bad. But that rating is neither new nor extraordinary. In fact, during a time when many states' bond ratings have improved, Ohio's rating is statistically quite average.

Strange isn't it, Ms. Cohen, that you seem to be so sincere about Mr. Mandel who seems to be so manipulative.

I read this article as the reporter asking fair, disinterested, factual and nonpartisan questions.

The reporter posed those questions of a candidate for US Senate about his political opinions with respect issues that are now or have been recently considered by the US Senate.

Just as it the candidate's job to have thoughtful answers, it is the reporters job to report the candidate doesn't.

That is not an endorsement. That is the way we voters learn about candidates.

Ohhh, I see your irony: Josh Mandel is "too busy campaigning" for office to do the work of running the current state office for which he was recently elected or learning about the one for which he is running...

National Federation of Independent Businesses says "It's clear to us at NFIB that there's one candidate who stands up."

Stands up for what?

Josh Mandel hasn't stood up and said anything specific.

Apparently Josh Mandel hopes "imaginary votes" conceal his views. But Josh Mandel's hiring inexperienced political hacks to do technical state jobs shows his wrong-headed priorities. And Josh Mandel's repeating statements that he knows are false (or doesn't even understand himself) shows his lack of integrity.

By contrast, National Federation of Independent Businesses endorsing Republican Josh Mandel is no surprise. What is clear is that the NFIB's criteria are perfectly consistent: in 2010 ALL the OHIO CANDIDATES NFIB ENDORSED were REPUBLICANS.

Using the same irony you employ, Mr. Corrigan, I fear that Josh Mandel would do the same things in the US Senate that he's doing as Ohio's Treasurer and he did in other offices to which he was elected.

Josh Mandel:

* IGNORES HIS JOB: hires his political hacks--yesterday he finally admitted to doing so without even considering their resumes--to do highly technical jobs and he ignores statutory duties

* FIXATES ON FUNDRAISING: even if that means he flies out-of-country to gather money from pay-day lenders who would have bought him off by mail

* CHEATS ON THE FACTS AND IGNORES THE TRUTH: refuses to offer details supporting the few positions he takes, refuses take positions on current and important issues and, worse of all, has been quoted as saying that he'll say things that he knows are wrong--most people call that lying--because he sees no downside in doing so.

We agree, though, that Mr. Mandel will be busy, counter-productively so.

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.